linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix possible css ref leak on oom

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160524084737.GC8259@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2016 10:47:37 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix possible css ref leak on oom

On Tue 24-05-16 11:43:19, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 07:44:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 23-05-16 19:02:10, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > mem_cgroup_oom may be invoked multiple times while a process is handling
> > > a page fault, in which case current->memcg_in_oom will be overwritten
> > > leaking the previously taken css reference.
> > 
> > Have you seen this happening? I was under impression that the page fault
> > paths that have oom enabled will not retry allocations.
> 
> filemap_fault will, for readahead.

I thought that the readahead is __GFP_NORETRY so we do not trigger OOM
killer.

> This is rather unlikely, just like the whole oom scenario, so I haven't
> faced this leak in production yet, although it's pretty easy to
> reproduce using a contrived test. However, even if this leak happened on
> my host, I would probably not notice, because currently we have no clear
> means of catching css leaks. I'm thinking about adding a file to debugfs
> containing brief information about all memory cgroups, including dead
> ones, so that we could at least see how many dead memory cgroups are
> dangling out there.

Yeah, debugfs interface would make some sense.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs